Paul Bonwick

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should start by congratulating the gentleman across. I am quite surprised to hear that he is the self-appointed voice of Quebec now. That was quite amusing. I have a couple of questions for the hon. member.

First of all, for my interest, I am wondering if he might clarify what he considers a special interest group. I have heard some of the hon. members say you cannot classify this as a special interest group, people in my riding. I am curious if he brought the entire population of his riding or a group of citizens within his riding that are interested in one specific topic, gun registration. I would ask what his definition of special interest group is because he certainly seems to be catering to them in this House.

My second question is one on domestic violence and the fact of gun registration and is it appropriate. Domestic violence knows no borders. It happens in rural Canada. It happens in rural Alberta. It happens in rural Simcoe—Grey. And it certainly takes place in many urban communities throughout this country.

Does the hon. member not think that the police have a right to know when they are going to that most unpleasant of calls where there is nothing but emotion in play, whether or not there are firearms in the residence? Do they have that right to know? If there is a situation that is taking place where a woman is being abused and assaulted and there is a potential that there are weapons, long rifles upstairs, downstairs, somewhere in that house, should the police not have the right to know before they walk in that door? Of course, they govern themselves accordingly, but they still should have the right and it could save lives.

Does the hon. member believe that the police should have the right to know whether or not there are weapons in the house? If there are weapons that can kill people, should the police have a right to know they are in there?

[National Parks Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I might start by offering some thoughts from some of the people who were present at the committee. They had the same difficulties as the member had in wrestling with this most difficult question with regard to the boundaries and the requested change for the boundaries.

Basically it boils down to one thing only, a request from a mining company. It is simply that. I put a question to one of the witnesses who came forward in trying to find a solution that might be somewhat flexible and workable. The question I asked was is there any reason other than pure economics or the money generated from this mine in the park to move forward on this or change the boundaries. The answer was no. It was pure and simple mining.

There are three main points why the government cannot support this motion. The first one is the integrity of the park. The integrity of the park or the ecosystem within is extremely delicate and the boundaries of the park, agreed on some years ago, need to be maintained not just for our generation but for future generations. To allow a chunk of land, some hundreds of thousands of acres, to be severed off for purely economic reasons, this government can simply not support that.

The second reason is the animals within, the calving groups of the bluenose caribou. They do shift but, as I mentioned earlier, the ecosystems are extremely delicate and to take up several hundred thousand acres of the mating or calving grounds of these animals is simply not appropriate. These animals play a huge role in the overall diet of the native people within that area.

My third reason is economics. This process has been going on for 20 years. It has involved all parties. The agreement was put in place I believe in 1996 and due to some new ways of testing for mineral resources in the latter part of 1996-97, a mining company found deposits within the national park itself.

This is not contingent on the mining process moving forward. Only 20% of the total find is within the national park. What they are asking for is to mine that 20%, to compromise that very delicate ecosystem and to compromise the bluenose caribou.

It was for no other reason than economics.

This government and certainly all parties were having a difficult job with it because they certainly do not want to appear as if they are not supportive of the economics and the native people moving forward and having job opportunities from mining.

That is why I bring to the House's attention that it is only 20% and it is important to understand that. Based on the testing this is not the number one site for exploration. This was the third site on the priority list for exploration and thereby is not simply the only place they are pursuing.

The government simply cannot support this for the reasons mentioned. It is an extremely difficult thing but when one looks at these three reasons it becomes very simple.

[National Parks Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am looking for a clarification. Are we speaking about the strip mall in Banff National Park or are we speaking to the amendments that the hon. member from the Bloc has put forward?

[National Parks Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 1, the government would support that motion with the correction of the spelling error.

Motion No. 2 the government cannot support. It is not because of the intent. The intent is certainly in the right direction. However, a legal opinion has suggested that the recognition does not actually give the Inuvialuit settlement region any further guarantees or claims. There are already provisions in there with respect to the Western Arctic land claim, the Inuvialuit final agreement and the Western Arctic claims and, therefore, it is not appropriate to have that second reference or change.

[Points Of Order, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order with regard to comments made last night in this House by the Reform member for Wild Rose.

The Reform member directed an accusation at the member for Ottawa Centre. He very clearly stated that the hon. member had lied. I will certainly state for the record that the member for Ottawa Centre is one of the most respected and experienced members of this House.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for his background on the budget and the importance this government has shown toward justice issues.

I too would like to direct a comment and a question to the hon. member on Bill C-68 as well. Bill C-68 is nothing more than a record or an accountability of all the weapons or long arms, guns that are out there in Canada. It is not dissimilar to refrigerators, automobiles, cars and animals.

Does the hon. member believe that if we create this data bank of weapons, that the police deserve to have access to the knowledge of whether or not weapons are located in a house when they go to a domestic call? Does the member think that is a good idea?

[Canadian Youth, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the young people of Canada. I start by using the words of our Prime Minister in describing them as Canada's greatest resource.

As I travel across my riding of Simcoe—Grey I feel an overwhelming sense of optimism regarding the future of our great country. However, this road will not be an easy one for our upcoming generation. It will require the tools to compete in this ever changing world.

One of the most important tools we as parents and as a government can provide is access to education. It is for this reason I am especially proud to be part of a government, a team, that has the fortitude to put in place a program like the Canadian millennium scholarship program. This will afford young Canadians access to post-secondary education regardless of location or financial status.

With access to education I know young people like those visiting from Duntroon public school will not just compete in the next millennium, they will lead in the next millennium.

I say bravo for the Canadian millennium scholarship program and what a great future Canada has.

[Division No. 158, May 25th, 1998]

That is exactly what is between your ears.

[Division No. 158, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I contribute to the debate on the merits of Bill C-36. The question in my mind is, on such a basic issue as education, a mom and apple pie type issue, what does Reform have against students? It boggles me.

I consider it a privilege to serve as a member of this government and as we for the first time in a generation deliver a balanced budget speak about an education initiative this government has brought forward. What makes me most proud about this accomplishment is the fact that it has enabled us to introduce perhaps the most progressive program every witnessed in this country, the Canada millennium scholarship program, the cornerstone of the Canadian opportunities strategy.

This government knows there is no better investment in the future than future investments in access to post-secondary education, knowledge and innovation. That is why we are creating the single largest endowment ever offered by a federal government to ensure that a post-secondary education is within reach of anyone who wants it. We are especially targeting those of modest means for whom post-secondary education would be beyond their grasp.

This $2.5 billion initiative will change the lives and the future of Canadians. It will give Canadians access to the knowledge and skills necessary for jobs of the 21st century. It will give up to one million Canadians a chance to thrive in a new economy and in a new millennium.

There can be no debate. As we stand here on the threshold of the 21st century we must prepare our citizens to think innovatively and creatively in a world that is transformed into information and technology. For this very reason increasing access to post-secondary education must be a national priority.

Yet there are some in this country who suggest it is not the Government of Canada's business to ensure higher learning and make sure it is accessible and affordable; this despite the fact it is now universally recognized that post-secondary education is a precondition for full participation in a future economy. These critics overlook the federal government's well established history in helping Canadians to pursue advanced studies.

In addition to funding post-secondary education through Canada's health and social transfer we have provided some $4.2 billion in financial assistance since 1964 to students in provinces that participate in the Canada student loans program. Since that same year we have provided $1.4 billion to the two jurisdictions that do not participate in the program, namely Quebec and the Northwest Territories.

We have a long tradition of awarding scholarships to students through various granting councils and programs such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Medical Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. If this legislation is adopted we will add an additional $400 million for the next three years to the combined budgets of these three councils. This is pretty impressive.

While similar in spirit, the Canada millennium scholarship fund is quite unique. This contribution is Canada's way of celebrating the passage into the new millennium. We are observing this extraordinary event not by building monuments but by investing in Canadians and preparing them to be the knowledge workers in a knowledge economy.

An equally important reason why the millennium scholarship cannot be considered the same as other federal funding for post-secondary education is that the endowment fund will be managed by an independent organization.

The Canada millennium scholarship foundation in consultation with key stakeholders will decide how to design and deliver millennium scholarship funds. The fund will be administered by a board of directors made up of private citizens, at least one of whom will be a student.

The minister of education as well as the education community will play a key role in identifying prospective directors and nominating people who have a pulse on the education community. Once operational, the foundation will be able to enter into agreements with provincial governments and post-secondary institutions on some aspects of scholarship eligibility. In addition the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation will be expected to minimize administrative costs and overhead.

Our overriding goal is to significantly increase access to post-secondary studies everywhere in Canada for low and middle income students and to do so in a way that avoids duplication with any province.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that the millennium scholarship complements other types of student assistance programs. Given this flexibility the Government of Quebec's decision to break off discussions regarding the millennium fund is both puzzling and very frustrating.

This government is deeply dismayed that Quebec has not put the interests of young Quebeckers first. Dismayed but not totally surprised. From the outset the PQ government took a hard line putting forward a lopsided proposal that left no room for reconciliation. Despite our repeated efforts to find common ground, our provincial counterparts remained intransigent.

The position of Mr. Bouchard's government has not changed. Mr. Bouchard wants to opt out with full compensation. His government has shown no flexibility whatsoever. It is clear that Mr. Bouchard had no intention of negotiating so there is no point in returning to the negotiation table.

Even though Premier Bouchard told the Prime Minister last March that he recognized the Government of Canada's intention to “make a significant concrete and modern contribution to the knowledge through scholarships and” acknowledge that this was “a legitimate concern”, the Quebec government wants to opt out of this program with full compensation. This would seriously weaken and undermine the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation and the intent for which it is put in place.

As disappointing as these developments are, we must move forward without interfering with Quebec's priorities in the areas of education and without penalizing, most importantly, Quebec students.

Members on this side of the House are confident that a solution to outstanding issues relating to implementing a foundation can be found in the context of the current legislation. As the Prime Minister has already said in the House “We are satisfied that the bill gives us the needed flexibility to resolve the situation in a reasonable manner”. Reasonable words from a reasonable man.

The fact that the finance committee decided to extend its consideration for Bill C-36 to hear further witnesses is a further reflection of that flexibility, but there are practical limitations which must be factored into the equation. If we want this program in place by the year 2000 we must adopt the legislation as quickly as possible.

I hear my colleagues across the floor commenting “Not until the year 2000”. They speak is if we are in the 1950s or the 1930s. The year 2000 is merely 18 months away.

It is equally important that we not lose sight of the principal reason for introducing the millennium scholarships. Canada's success and competitiveness in the next century will depend on Canadians being well equipped and well motivated to meet Canada's challenges in a knowledge based economy.

The Canada millennium scholarships are critical new tools to help us prepare Canadians for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. As much as they will help equip 100,000 students each year with the knowledge necessary to function in an information society, they will also inspire other youth who may be thinking about dropping out or hesitating about going to college or university.

Perhaps most significant, these scholarships will heighten public awareness and appreciation that a post-secondary education is essential in a knowledge based economy. They will help mobilize the entire population behind a clear and strong inspiring vision, a collective future in which we all have the knowledge and skills we need.

The Government of Canada is determined to lead our society toward a future in which all Canadians are empowered to succeed in the new economy. That is why it is so critical that we quickly pass Bill C-36. If Canada is to grow and prosper in the 21st century we must begin by implementing the federal budget today.

I ask members opposite to read the bill, not the prepared texts which their staff have put together for them.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To suggest that somebody in the House has diarrhoea is absolutely outlandish. Why can the hon. member not stick to the issues and answer the questions? Enough of the rhetoric—